On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 11:15:32PM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote:
Another related bug type that I found lurking in my packages when I
investigated the warnings in this list, is trying to format a size_t
value with a %u or %d format string, which will break if size_t is
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:45:10AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
[1] Useful fragment for cross platform shell scripts:
#!/bin/sh
# Do the Solaris Dance:
if [ ! -d ~root ] ; then
exec /usr/xpg4/bin/sh $0 $@
fi
Umm.. Ick it woudl be better as
if [ -x /usr/xpg4/bin/sh ] ; then
[1] Useful fragment for cross platform shell scripts:
#!/bin/sh
# Do the Solaris Dance:
if [ ! -d ~root ] ; then
exec /usr/xpg4/bin/sh $0 $@
fi
sigh.. okay, my correction had bugs, too :-)
better as
if [ ! -d ~root -a -x /usr/xpg4/bin/sh ] ; then
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:32:11 -0500
Source: kdrill
Binary: kanadic kdrill makedic
Architecture: source sparc all
Version: 6.4-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Philip Brown
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:31:48 -0500
Source: filter
Binary: filter
Architecture: source sparc
Version: 2.6.3-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:55:54 +0200
Source: kdrill
Binary: kanadic kdrill makedic
Architecture: source sparc all
Version: 6.3.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Philip Brown
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:14:43 +0200
Source: filter
Binary: filter
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.4.2-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 07:55:54 +0200
Source: kdrill
Binary: makedic kanadic kdrill
Architecture: source i386 all
Version: 6.2.1-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Philip Brown
On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 07:38:00AM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
(Personally, I'd vote against a proposal to make it mandatory. We have more
than enough release-critical issues at the moment - cleaning up
documentation to conform completely to W3C standards and recommendations is
probably
Has anyone noticed that someone has pseudo-hijacked
keyserver.debian.org.com
Is this supposed to be there?
It seems to be kinda worrying that someone has registered that hostname.
Particularly since I found it by doing a dns lookup of
keyserver.debian.org
and the host I'm on, fell through to
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:15:47AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
...
Particularly since I found it by doing a dns lookup of
keyserver.debian.org
keyring.debian.org is the secret sauce
perhaps the appropriate person for debian might put in a CNAME record?
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 03:29:31PM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I have only ever seen browsers do this kind of nonsense. I have never seen
nslookup, dig, or host, attempt such lame lookup methods before.
live and learn:
--
Script started on Tue
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 02:01:02 -0400
Source: kdrill
Binary: makedic kanadic kdrill
Architecture: source alpha all
Version: 6.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Philip Brown
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:00:10 +0200
Source: kdrill
Binary: makedic kanadic kdrill
Architecture: source alpha all
Version: 5.12.2-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Changed-By: Philip Brown
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 04:50:51PM +0200, Stefan Schwandter wrote:
...
And it doesn't make sense if I compile the program with lesstif, as long
as upstream doesn't want to support it, because if people file bug
reports against snd in debian, and I forward it to him, he'll most
probably not
[ Craig Sanders writes ]
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 11:26:25AM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
And in the case of the debian mailing lists, you should reply to the
list.
bullshit.
some replies should go to the list, and some replies should be private.
it's up to the person writing the reply
[ Thomas 'Mike' Michlmayr writes ]
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 10:43:05 -0800,
Philip Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So headers should be optimized for group discussion.
Replying to individuals is a secondary function.
not at all. replying to individuals is an essentail function
[ D-Man writes ]
...
Try mutt and its L command. The L command means list-reply, aka
only send a message to the list, not to all recepients. It also sets
a header flag so that other well-behaved MUA's don't send you an extra
copy of their replies since you will get it on the list anyway.
[ Miles Bader writes ]
Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which reminds me, why doesn't this list just set:
reply-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Because it's completely wrong.
Doing so takes the choice of who to reply to (the sender or the list)
out of the hands of the reader
[ Miles Bader writes ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Brown) writes:
As opposed to the current scheme, which also requires annoying manual
editing of addresses to reply to the list, if your mailreader does the
reasonable thing and assumes you want to reply to the original sender of
the message
[ Nathan E Norman writes ]
...
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 12:11:21PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
I guess YOUR mailreader is too old or disfunctional to be worth
discussing
I did not request you to Cc me.
But you replied to the list AND me.
...
Since you've set the Reply-To: header
[ Miles Bader writes ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Brown) writes:
I guess YOUR mailreader is too old or disfunctional to be worth
discussing
I did not request you to Cc me.
But you replied to the list AND me.
Because that is the most useful action for mail followups in the absence
[ D-Man writes ]
A different list that I am on does the Reply-To munging. This means
that if I hit group-reply (when I use an MUA that doesn't understand
lists) the list will get 2 copies : 1 in the To and 1 in the CC field.
Is this really what you want? Getting double mail on the list?
[ D-Man writes ]
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 02:30:39PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
Funny, you just did exactly that. If your mailreader was better, you would
have a better functioning group-reply.
Umm, no I wasn't complaining about my mailreader, but one that I don't
use now. I solved
[ Ben Armstrong writes ]
So, for subsections perhaps:
...
Education/Language
qvocab
I'd love an Education/Language section too.
I'm not really happy with any of the Menu choices available for my
kdrill program, which is a vocabulary quiz program,and dictionary for
kanji.
The
25 matches
Mail list logo
